slidehero

this is so false that Dunning and Kruger invented a name for it

> isn't related to usefulness or economic value

which gets us closer to philosophical questions which I'm personally not that interested in.

>In the same way airplanes fail the 'bird replacement' requirement, AIs currently fail most AGI requirements only on the terms: "fully", "all" and "any".

I'm not sure we want a machine that fully succeeds that test.

Planes pass the 'bird replacement' test on the only criteria that matters to us ... flying.

If we wanted nest making planes I think we'd have them by now. Nest making doesn't rate highly on the problems we're looking to solve though.

I don't want a machine that is moody, or depressed or has schizophrenia, which are all pat of the human condition.

We don't need the human "intuition magic dust" to do 99.99999% of useful work.

They're machines designed to do the work we don't want to. That's as "general" as their intelligence needs to be.

I'd prefer if my clothes folding machine did not have an existential crisis.

>If there's big limitations on the overlap forever, then there will never be AGI.

maybe. we'll see.

>I'm confused, is your argument something like "It's too easy so AGI doesn't need to be able to do it"?

Do you possess magnetoreception? a stupid pigeon can "see" the earth's magentic field. why are you blind to it? does a lack of magnetoreception make your intelligence any less "general"

no, you're just blind to it because that's just the way it is.

LLMs are blind to character counting because that's the way they are.

It didn't stop ChatGPT from finding the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample.

Human intelligence and machine intelligence are only going to cross over to a certain degree.

same as plane flight and bird flight are only kinda related.

appreciate your response, but it's still birds vs planes.

AI does not need to feel emotions or have a heartbeat to be useful. It only needs to perform a task correctly à la Chinese room.

>therefore cannot fully replicate human-like intelligence

this does not follow. planes don't flap wings therefore they cannot fly?

which just brings us back to the whole birds vs planes thing.

turns out that flapping wings is not the right way to unlock human flight.

computers could count the Rs in strawberry since vacuum tubes. that measure is irrelevant.

> gaslight about answers to questions like "how many r's in strawberry" or "s's in espresso".

this has been debunked too many times to bother rebutting. they struggle with those things because of the way they are.

it's completely irrelevant.

>why not the planet?

greed

>I'm sure people thought calculators and, indeed, computers themselves were very Harry Potter

nobody thought that

> In this case, it's just a book that fools us into believing it can think and reason like we do

that's some Harry Potter kind of "writes itself" book.

at this point, for me, any comment about LLMs that begins with "it's just ..." is hard to take seriously.

Terrence is impressed. Good enough for me.

presumably most people running these bots are doing it for some financial gain. as long gain > cost the issue won't go away.

It'll stop the ones doing it for the lols, but I imagine they're a minority anyway.

similar story with the appendix.

Initially considered a useless vestige, now thought to be involved with maintaining gut bacteria.

>I simply see no benefit of a copy of very Windows-y app.

That's cool, sounds like it's not for you then.

There are plenty of people who would appreciate it though.

I've been using N++ for a long time. I have tried just about every editor out there and I always end up back in N++.

It's old. It is missing a lot of the bells and whistles of newer editors, but I'm still most productive in old faithful :)

had the same thought.

I've been a gamer for just about 40 years. Gaming is my "thing"

I found the challenges fun, but easy. Coming back and reading comments from people struggling with the games, my first thought was - yup definitely not a gamer.

My approach was to poke at the controls to suss the rules, then the actual solutions were really straightforward.

fwiw, I'm pretty dumb generally, but these kinds of puzzles are my jam.

Asimov comes across as jealous of Orwell's unmatched contribution to not only literature but also culture. Asimov never came close to having the same impact, maybe that irked him.